Thank you very much for this most enlightening post. Most people need
to be defended against their followers: Luther against the Lutherans,
Calvin against the Calvinsists, and, dare I say it, Christ aagainst the
Christians.

Jon

Robert Schneider wrote:

> This is a longish note and you may want to set it aside until you have
> time to read it.
>
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
> In a response to a comment of Burgy's on a comment of Howard Van
> Till’s, George Murphy wrote:
>
> It isn't sufficient to say that a doctrine is "a human attempt
>
> > to understand the mystery of God."
> > It's more precise than that. A doctrine in Christian theology is an
>
> > attempt to specify how to speak faithfully about an important aspect
> of
> > Christian belief about God and God's relationship with the world.
> > To pursue the present example of "original sin," it is a
> basic
> > belief of Christians and a teaching of the church that all human
> beings,
> > though God's creatures, are sinners and in need of salvation. If
> one
> > wants to try to explain this in greater detail, there are boundaries
>
> > that must be observed if that basic belief is to be maintained.
> OTOH,
> > one cannot say that human beings can simply stop sinning if they try
>
> > hard enough - i.e., save themselves (Pelagius). OTOH, one cannot
> say
> > that human nature is completely destroyed or replaced by sin, so
> that
> > they would no longer be God's creation (Flacius).
> > Within those boundaries, various doctrines of "original sin" or "sin
> of
> > origin" can be developed.
> > Thus there is not simply one "doctrine of original sin" or
> > "doctrine of the Trinity," but various forms of doctrine developed
> by
> > different theologians or communities. But there are some basic
> > dogmas_ - that the universe is God's creation, that the man Jesus is
>
> > Lord in the full sense, &c. The formulation of doctrines is not a
> > matter of "anything goes". Doctrines must preserve the integrity of
>
> > those dogmas, though they may be expressed in very different
> languages,
> > philosophical frameworks, &c.
> > I anticipate, of course, somebody saying, "But those dogmas are
> > just human statements." Yes, they are statements of human beings
> about
> > their experience of God's revelation in Jesus. & if that is
> challenged
> > then I simply have to say, as Luther did at Marburg, "We are of a
> > different spirit."
>
> I agree with Burgy, and stongly with the comment of Howard Van Till
> that prompted it, and also with George’s modification, especially his
> comment that there are basic dogmas such as those he cited that need
> to be preserved.But one thing George wrote caught my attention.The
> statement “> one cannot say that human beings can simply stop sinning
> if they try > hard enough - i.e., save themselves (Pelagius)” is a
> popular and oft repeated expression of Pelagius’ teaching.But I am
> reminded of a remark Karl Marx once made at a meeting of a young
> communist league.Listening to the discussion, he blurted out, “I am
> not a Marxist!”I think Pelagius, listening to some of the teachings
> which have attributed to him through the history of Western
> Christianity, could rightly say, “I am not a Pelagian!”
>
> In the context of our ongoing discussion on "original sin" and
> the question of whether this doctrine is relevant in the light of the
> acceptance by many Christians that we human beings have evolved from
> earlier forms of life, I should like to offer a synopsis of Pelagius’
> views on original sin, sinful habit, free will and grace.I’ll rely
> here on Robert Evan’s study (Pelagius:Inquiries and Reappraisals) and
> also on my own earlier reading of P’s fragments On Nature and On Free
> Will, brief portions of his lengthy Commentary on the Epistles of St.
> Paul (especially on Romans), and his Letter to Demetrias (she was one
> of those noble Roman ladies the Fathers were always writing letters
> to).
>
> First of all, Pelagius never said that we can save ourselves by our
> own effort, our own “unaided nature.” He said that we are capable of
> not sinning, and that is quite a different thing, as Evans points
> out.P. rejected the doctrine of original sin as Augustine formulated
> it because it took away the freedom of the will to choose either good
> or evil, and he reminded Augustine that he had defended free will in
> his treatise against the Manicheans.He also rejected it because, as he
> understood A., it made sin a substance, and if that is the case, he
> said (in On Nature), “we can shake hands with the Manicheans.”Pelagius
> was in the unfortunate position (as he was with Jerome, the
> ex-Origenist) of reminding his theological opponents of their former
> associations, and these reminders probably infuriated Augustine, who
> was, after all, a passionate man, as others infuriated Jerome, who was
> also passionate, but in a more waspish way than the sensual A.
>
> Furthermore, contrary to another one of the “tenets” of “Pelagianism,”
> Pelagius had a doctrine of grace.It was not A’s concept of an infused
> power, but it was grace, nevertheless.Evans identifies five
> elements.The reason P. believed that we can choose not to sin was that
> God’s first gracious gift was the grace of free will.It is integral to
> our nature and was bestowed upon us in the creation, and never lost.In
> this he was orthodox in the views of many Christian thinkers.It is
> worthy to note that two councils of Eastern bishops declared P’s views
> orthodox.I once discussed this notion of the grace of free will with
> Orthodox theologian Fr. Thomas Hopko, and he said he thought P. was
> orthodox on this point.(Hopko also said of Augustine that “he was a
> brilliant rhetorician but a terrible technical theologian.”)Therefore,
> answering an objection of A., when we do choose good, P. said, we have
> nothing to boast about and in fact we give glory to God.
>
> The second gracious gift is the Law.P. followed Paul in declaring that
> the law is good and holy, because it had the power to reveal sin.Prior
> to the grace of the law, we human beings had fallen under the power of
> “sinful habit” and lost our knowledge of the natural law of our own
> essential created goodness and our freedom to choose.We sin in
> imitation of Adam, most immediately by imitating those around us
> sinning (to my mind a psychologically sound observation); thus sin,
> over time, gradually corrupts us.We are not born with this corruption,
> but we acquire it.P. could even say that habit holds the sinner “as it
> were by a certain necessity of sinning,” but it is a necessity that he
> has prepared for himself, not some inherited power that grips him (I
> think this is another psychologically sound position).P. believed that
> the law that comes from God liberates us from our ignorance of the
> “law of man’s nature” that was bestowed in the creation, and that we
> had lost.However, although God did not lay upon the Jews any moral
> laws they were incapable of fulfilling, the power of sinful habit
> remained too strong for the majority, and therefore (exegeting Paul
> thus), the law did not justify, because the Jews were unable to keep
> it.Under the time of the law, P. believed (in Evans words), “It lies
> beyond the grasp of man to know and be what he is and remains.”The
> grace of the Law had to be completed by the grace of the Gospel.P.
> took seriously Paul’s words that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law,
> and this fulfillment is the grace of Christ.
>
> The grace of Christ, for P., was the Person himself:in his activities
> as redeemer and example, in his teaching as revealer.The redemptive
> grace of Christ is received at baptism, and it is a grace of
> justification by faith alone(!).The revealing grace that comes from
> Christ’s presence in his teachings is a grace of illumination, by
> which “he opens the eyes of our hearts” to “the things to come…in that
> by revealing wisdom he stirs our numbed will toward a longing for God,
> in that he persuades us toward everything that is good” (frag. On Free
> Choice; cf. Eph. 1:18).Finally, there is the grace of example.Christ
> shows us the way to eternal life, and we are effectuated by his grace
> to follow his example.I see this as a form of the classic notion of
> imitatio Christi.
>
> Evans summarizes P. doctrine of grace, as “(1) that original endowment
> with rational will by which men have the capacity to be without sin,
> (2) the law of Moses; (3) the forgiveness of sins in virtue of the
> redemptive death of Christ; (4) the example of Christ; (5) the
> teaching of Christ conceived both as “law” and more generally as
> teaching concerning the things proper to man’s nature and
> salvation.”Now, it is clear that P.s doctrine is different from the
> one that became established as Western orthodoxy.He has no conception
> of infused grace, and he clearly holds that the effectual power of
> grace requires our consent to it; grace is not irresistible, as A.
> held.Free will is always preserved in Pelagius’ thought: what the
> power of Christ’s grace accomplishes is to make that will effectual
> again.In this P. ties together the work of Christ as both creator and
> redeemer.(George points out above that “there is not simply one
> ‘doctrine of original sin’… but various forms of doctrine….” That is
> true, and the same ought to be said about the doctrine of grace.)
>
> I should add that Pelagius’ views were popular and even occasioned on
> the streets of Rome some of those theological donnybrooks our
> Christian forebears sometimes engaged in.And one may well wonder if in
> the short run the Augustinian view prevailed because of political
> bribery (those 80 Numidian stallions Alypius gave to imperial
> commanders) and coercion; too often in the history of Christian
> doctrine the ends have been thought to justify the means.Why it
> prevailed in the long run is another story.
>
> I was attracted to Pelagius’ views on free will and grace before my
> conversion ten years ago, and that experience did not change my
> positive view, because in reflecting on my own experience of grace, it
> seems to accord more with P’s perspective than with A’s..Perhaps I’ll
> share these things at a later time.
>
> For now let me leave you with this question:if one accepts that we
> human beings have evolved from earlier hominid and primate forms, how
> then does one understand free will and sin in the context of the
> evolution of instincts, behavior, self-consciousness, and, perhaps
> (with Darwin and others) of moral sense?Might a doctrine of free will,
> sin and grace like Pelagius’ prove to be more consonant with a new
> understanding of human nature? I think it is an open question, too
> soon to answer, perhaps, but worth keeping in mind as we reevaluate
> theological concepts in the light of the new scientific paradigm and a
> deepening understanding of human nature.
>
> Grace and peace to all,
>
> Bob Schneider
>